Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Maleckunnel Philip Varghese Vs DCIT (ITAT Cuttack)
Related Assessment Year : 2017-2018
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Maleckunnel Philip Varghese Vs DCIT (ITAT Cuttack) No Satisfaction, No Penalty under section 271D & 271E of Income Tax Act, 1961 – ITAT Cuttack follows SC in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills  Cuttack ITAT quashed penalties levied u/s 271D & 271E on the ground that no satisfaction was recorded by the AO in the assessment order for initiating such penalty proceedings. Assessee challenged the penalty on three primary grounds  (i) absence of satisfaction recorded in assessment order; (ii) penalties barred by limitation; & (iii) no cash was actually paid or received during the year. Before the ...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.

Author Bio

CA Vijayakumar Shetty qualified in 1994 and in practice since then. Founding partner of Shetty & Co. He is a graduate from St Aloysius College, Mangalore . View Full Profile

My Published Posts

Section 54F Deduction Allowed on Genuine House Purchase from In-Laws: Mumbai ITAT Pune ITAT Quashes Reassessment as Section 148A(b) & 148A(d) Reasons Differed Section 54 Relief Can’t Be Denied Merely Due to Section 50C Addition: Pune ITAT Delhi ITAT Deletes Penny Stock Addition; Suspicion Can’t Replace Evidence Section 54F Exemption Allowed on Sale of Redeveloped Flat: ITAT Mumbai View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031